And then there's Miller Nash, founded in 1873, one of the Northwest's most prominent law firms with more than 100 attorneys in Oregon and Washington. The firm promotes itself as a passionate advocate for corporations, ports, tribes, hospitals and pro bono clients.

Miller Nash has fielded intense criticism. Some blogs republished a Sea Shepherd statement that contrasts the law firm's support of a no-kill animal shelter in Prineville with its work for "a company that is illegally slaughtering defenseless whales inside the boundaries of a whale sanctuary."

Christie Helmer, a Miller Nash attorney on the case, wouldn't comment. She said the courtroom is the appropriate place to try the case. Helmer, an expert in admiralty law, also declined to discuss the firm's decision to represent the Japanese institute and the ships' owner, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd.

"Why would they not want to represent them?" asked Gavin Carter, a spokesman for the Cetacean Institute. "They've got a good case."

Law firms' motivations for taking on an unpopular client can range from a mercenary desire to make money to an idealistic belief in the right of all parties to legal representation.

Mark Long, managing partner of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, another large Northwest law firm, said his company reviews any potential client for legal conflicts of interest, checking for example whether Schwabe already represents another party in related proceedings. Schwabe lawyers also take into account a potential customer's political conflicts with existing clients, he said, to avoid straining loyalties.

Long said Schwabe wouldn't automatically reject a potential client for involvement in a politically charged issue. "The mere fact that it is high-profile and something that may not be popular with a segment of the public in and of itself would not be a disqualifying factor," Long said.

Some legal organizations, such as the Western Environmental Law Center, have philosophically based mission statements that would almost certainly rule out clients including whale hunters. But parties on the other side of environmental issues tend not to approach the Eugene-based legal nonprofit for representation, Executive Director Greg Costello said.

"We've never been asked by some timber trade association or miners or something like that to take on a lawsuit against Oregon Wild," Costello said.

Miller Nash may not lose business from environmental groups, judging by the attitude of the Sierra Club's Oregon chapter. Chapter Director Brian Pasko, who is also a lawyer, said his organization chooses pro bono attorneys based on effectiveness, trust and respect. "The fact that a firm took on a challenging client," Pasko said, "I certainly wouldn't hold that against them."

Sea Shepherd's counsel is Harris & Moure, a Seattle law firm known for international work including maritime cases. Attorney Dan Harris said he doesn't necessarily begrudge Miller Nash for taking on the case.

Harris expects court arguments Thursday to focus on the Cetacean Institute's motion for a preliminary injunction against the activists and on Sea Shepherd's motion to dismiss the case.

"We assert that most of their claims are completely invalid," Harris said, "and that this court does not have jurisdiction in the Southern Ocean."

Watson, the Sea Shepherd president, says in an affidavit that his activists have never injured any whalers. He accuses the whalers of attacking activists, using concussion grenades, long-range acoustical devices, bamboo spears, heavy nuts and bolts, water cannons and prop foulers.

But the whalers want Judge Jones to freeze Sea Shepherd's accounts on the grounds that the organization finances terrorism.

"It is defendants who should be stopped," says a Cetacean Institute court filing. "Plaintiffs are entitled to be free from attack by what are essentially self-proclaimed pirates with a base in the state of Washington."